FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1955
1955 - 1704.PDF
FIRST AERONAUTICAL WEEKLY IN THE WORLD FOUNDED 1909 and AIRCRAFT ENGINEER No 2445 Vol 68 FRIDAY 2 DECEMBER 1955 Editor MAURICE A. SMITH D.F.C. and BAR Associate Editor H. F. KING M.B.E. Technical Editor W. T. GUNSTON Production Editor ROY CASEY Iliffe and Sons Ltd Dorset House Stamford Street London, S.E.1 Telephone • Waterloo 3333 (60 lines) BRANCH OFFICES Coventry 8-10 Corporation Street Telephone • Coventry 5210 Birmingham 2 King Edward House, New Street Telephone • Midland 7191 (7 lines) Manchester 3 260 Deansgate Telephone • Blackfriars 4412 (3 lines) Deansgate 3595 (2 lines) Glasgow C.2 26B Renfield Street Telephone • Central 1265 (2 lines) Toronto 2, Ontario 74 College Street Telephone • Walnut 4-5361 New York 6, N.Y. Ill Broadway Telephone • Digby 9-1197 SUBSCRIPTION RATES Home and Overseas • Twelve Months, £4 10s. U.S.A. and Canada, $14.00 In this issue 827 Goodwill from Italy 829 A Record-holder Entertained 830 Kangaroo Route Comes of Age 832 Handling the A.O.P.9 836 Supersonic Bale-out 837 More Thoughts on the P.I 838 Ten Years at Malton 841 Shackleton Tour 842 The Felixstowe Flying-Boats 847 Pneumatic Control The Big BoatsF ROM the splendid old Felixstowe flying-boats (their story is told in this issue) stemmed a succession of machines which gave this country an acknow- ledged lead in the development of marine aircraft; and with the introduction of the Short "C" class boats on the Australia run—likewise commemorated this week—the big commercial boat attained its apotheosis. The significance of that event paralleled in its day the recent phenomenal accept- ance of the pure-jet airliner, for the "C" boats set wholly new standards of comfort, safety and speed. Never had such excellent machines been built in such numbers and with such clarity of purpose, and never since has an undertaking of like proportions been carried through with such complete success. To the descendants of these boats the future of Empire commerce seemed largely committed; but it was not to be. The landplane triumphed inexorably, and five years have now gone by since flying-boats bore the Speedbird over the Empire routes. There remain on the British register only the five Solents of Aquila Airways, while in R.A.F. service a few dogged Sunderlands work out their days to the undiminished honour of the name of Short. At Calshot and Cowes the three beautiful Princesses sleep on embalmed until a nameless god of Bristol shall break the spell—a romantic happy ending which may never, alas, come about. An American journal has done this country the honour of implying that some- thing momentous is afoot here in respect of flying-boat construction. Would that we knew it to be true. The sad fact is that, while the SeaMaster and Tradewind further the flying-boat tradition in the New World, the purse strings of the Treasury continue to throttle prospective British developments. Undaunted, the faithful ones at Cowes pursue their tank-testing of hydro-skids, hydro-skis and planing plates, and of hull forms so advanced that, should the word at length be given, an entirely new class of British flying-boat could with little delay be shaping on the stocks. Legal LiabilitiesI MPORTANT questions of the liability of aircraft owners for accidents to people on the ground were posed, but left unanswered, during a recent High Court action (reported on page 825). A woman unsuccessfully claimed damages against the pilot and the owner of a light aircraft which, it was alleged, had flown low and so caused her to be thrown from a horse and injured. One point which arose, and which is of urgent significance to all aircraft owners, is that contained in Section 40(2) of the Civil Aviation Act of 1949. This states that, "where material loss or damage is caused to any person on land or water by ... an aircraft while in flight, taking off or landing, then [unless there is contribu- tory negligence by that person] damages . . . shall be recoverable without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action, as if the loss or damage had been caused by the wilful act, neglect or default of the owner of the aircraft." In the High Court case, the owner's counsel urged that, on a true interpreta- tion, the owner possessed this liability only in cases where the pilot was his servant or agent. Certainly the literal reading of the above sub-section is unfortunate; and in cases of unauthorized pilotage it is obviously unfair. A relevant analogy is the common-law liability of owners of ships and land vehicles, which is based not upon mere ownership but upon the negligence of persons for whose conduct the owner is responsible. Another significant question is whether a technical breach of regulations un- connected with the alleged nuisance can invalidate the owner's exemption from liability contained in Section 40(1), one requirement of which is that the flight be carried out in compliance with the law. Other anomalies in common-law and statutory actions connected with flying may be recalled. It is regrettable that an owner's liability may still depend on the results of a barrister's rhetoric and the choice of witnesses rather than on a clear and logical ruling. There is indeed little excuse for legislation which remains static and vaguely intentioned.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
